[Prev| Next| Index] [Prev| Next| Index] Some thoughts about the CDA [Image] The greatest threat to exchange of ideas online is the Communications Decency Act (CDA). That so many of our country's federal representatives do not see the un-democratic nature of this provision is unsettling. I have read that the Internet use in the Senate and in Congress is lower than the national adult average. I am worried that legislators know less than the average citizen when it comes to regulating cyberspace. I can imagine that many lawmakers would be swayed by some of the ridiculously untrue statements and implications that appear in movies and in magazines. As I understand it, fines and jail time would be suitable punishment for individuals that transmit indecent materials to minors. This bill is meant to protect children from the electronic filth. In fact, there is plenty of material on the Internet that I would not like my children to see. But I think that this bill goes too far. The material that I would shield my children from already falls under obscenity laws (which are not being enforced). The CDA covers the "seven dirty words". These words are easily found in print, and in other media. I would liken the Internet more to print media than broadcast media because Internet users actively "get" content. In a time when Americans are clearly voicing their displeasure at "big government" (which I take to mean "government that is too pervasive and intrusive"), this law wont be popular just because it is unneccessary. But there is much more. Much of the Internet is not set up to ask for age-validation at the source. Mailing lists and Usenet, for example, would not fare well under this legislation. Could each site that carries Usenet would be responsible for their own censorship to make sure that articles did not include "indecent" material? No way. There are more than 9000 news groups carried at the University of Michigan. I bet they average at least 50 posts a day for a total of 450,000 posts that would need to be filtered every day at the U of M. No one could deal with that kind of volume, at the University or anywhere else. And so Usenet would die. Do I even want an Internet that is suitable (only?) for kids? America is responsible for bringing this computer revolution into being. The ability for everyone to publish their own content (through posting to Usenet, or building a Web page) is a very democratic and "American" concept. To make citizens self-censor their content to this degree is unconstitutional. It also limits what can be found "out there" -reducing the usefulness of the net as a research tool. I find it hard to imagine what the rest of the world will think of us. Internet service providers here would be unable to transmit the contents of "indecent" web pages from overseas. Would they prevent access to any overseas sites? How else could they assure that they had not violated this law? What an irony that the country that originated the Internet would have to "close up shop"! Other countries could only laugh at our Constitution because it has become so meaningless. America would be at a competetive disadvantage in world markets, because our access to information would be so curtailed. Finally, I would hate to think that I was being held to the standards of what some other Americans deemed "decent." My values vary from yours. Parents will always be the best judges of what is right for their children. It is not the job of the federal government to raise kids. A far better solution lies with the software that works very much like the V-chip that is mandated for TV in the Telecommunications Reform Act. Parents today have the ability to limit what their children access. All they need is software that is readily available for less than $50. This software can be customized so that the content I allow my children to access is not the same as the content your children may see. Each family can make the decisions based on their values. Summary: - "Decency" is a standard that most media are not held to. - Obscenity laws are already on the books (and are not enforced). - Regulating content at the source is impractical - Regulating content at the source makes the Internet less valuable - This law is anti-democratic and it abridges our constitutional rights. - America would be at a competitive disadvantage to other countries. - The government should not act as a substitute for parents. - Control of content in the homes is currently possible, practical, and flexible. I urge you to take these points to heart. The Communications Decency Act is an affront to the things that make the Internet and, indeed, America so great. Sincerely, Sarah L. Chambers Charles M. Chambers Ann Arbor, Michigan PS: I was planning to use one of the seven indecent words in this letter in order to protest the CDA and to show how ridiculous it would be to prosecute someone for such an act. I saw myself as a modern Rosa Parks - risking prosecution to cast a spotlight on an inherently wrong law. My wife, however, doesn't think the message is worth the risk. I disagree, but I will follow her advice for the moment.